Just think, here they are reporting that something has happened which, if the official story is to be believed was an accidental occurance, a full 20 minutes EARLY!!!

And this when never before in history, except for the twin towers, had a steel structured building EVER collapsed due to fire.

Incredible.

How is the BBC going to respond to this?

Can can the MSM not cover it, this story.

What an amazing story. Of course it's legit. The woman was talking to the anchor, with WTC7 right behind her head in the background.

Some sceptic cried "BLUE SCREEN" but that can be ruled out by simply analyzing the film.

This is wonderful!

THANK YOU BBC! And thank you whoever discovered this!

Sure looks like they were working from a script however, and got the news too early!

5pm and for whatever reason ran late, the fact is he says "Just in", which to me implies on a wire or press release system or similar...

Who knows.

I am 100% certain of the validity and timings that the BBC reported "LIVE" at 5pm Eastern Time on 9/11 that WTC7 had collapsed (within +/- 60 seconds margin of error)

I have created a V2 film, which I'll somehow make available online, with instructions how to verify, tidied up the text and the timings following hours and hours of verification and triple checking.

Everyone can validate this data by visiting the following two blog posts.

1) http://www.911blogger.com/node/6458#comment-119458

2) http://www.911blogger.com/node/6458?page=1#comment-119605

I have been through the entire BBC day (started at 9:16 Eastern Time) and they have shots through that open window throughout the day and into the night also.

This is 100% legit, verify it for yourselves.

Best wishes

a controlled demolition. It was 350 feet from the nearest tower, had some superficial damage from debris propelled out of the exploding tower, and it had flames in 5 or 6 of its 2,000+ windows. So why was there any "confusion" about what shape it was in before they obviously "pulled-it"???

through all that smoke they couldn't be confident that the damage was just superficial, nor could they say, there was only fire coming out of 5 or 6 windows. There was an ongoing fire and a large amount of smoke coming from a damaged building.

No one on 9/11/01 in the afternoon would say, "that building is in fine shape".

The reason its obvious that they pulled it is HOW it came down, as a controlled demolition.

If you skip to 4mins 33secs into the video...

as Philip Hayton, the London BBC host is saying... "We've got some news JUST coming in"

The background picture is not live, but you can get an idea how much smoke IS coming from the pile.


WTC6 front center, wind blowing north-north-east





Best wishes

I finally got a chance to see the video myself. Thanks, PrisonPlanet.

I think it is good to be cautious, but these reporters seem completely certain that the building is down. Usually during breaking stories, the reporters qualify early information with phrases like "There are reports that...", or "We are getting word that...". BBC doesn't use anything of the sort here. (Note that they are more careful about the number of injured policemen.)

Remember also that the time is several hours after the attacks, and although news stations are still scrambling, it's not like the chaos at the beginning.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

The reporters do NOT refer to a WTC 7 collapse at any point as probable, imminent, possible, etc. They say that it HAS collapsed, numerous times, as does the graphic.

In the same report, the woman DOES qualify her statements about numbers of injured emergency personnel, saying the numbers are unconfirmed.

To say that they were treating such a HUGE aspect of the story so carelessly while treating another aspect so carefully... it would defy belief.

As long as the video is genuine, I don't think it even matters what the time stamp says. They obviously are unfamiliar with WTC 7 to the extent that they don't even recognize it in their own shot as they describe it as having already collapsed.

The video is only uninteresting if it can be proven to be a fake, and it certainly appears pretty genuine. I'd like to hear what the reporter recalls about it.

We need to find what the source of report was and what criteria they were using to determine that the building would collapse. Another good question would be why didn't the experts who could see that WTC 7 was about to collapse explain the collapse mechanism to FEMA?

Dropping the infamous, but still proceeding with caution!

Maybe add some pics? Screenshots?

Good call on dropping the "infamous". This is no time to be glib.

Let me use Jones and Watson's words...

"While the exact time of the report cannot be confirmed at present..."

Nobody wishes to be sandbagged.

BBC reported the collapse at least 15 minutes earlier - and wtc7 is standing in the background - so how on earth could this story be something else than THEEE HOT NEWS?

if the reporters are shooting LIVE footage out the window showing WTC 7 still standing, while at the same time describing it as collapsed??

Why the hang-up on the time? It seems to me the primary questions are:

1) Is the footage genuine?

2) Is the scene through the window blue-screened? It looks completely live, to me, and I think any video expert should be able to tell.

I think the exact time is almost a red-herring. At best, it's almost a tertiary question.

Or am I missing something obvious?